NEW DELHI: The Gauhati high court has dismissed an appeal challenging a woman’s ownership of a piece of land she bought in 1975, saying the family members who later challenged the sale were late in doing so. The court found that the sale was not valid for the shares belonging to the minor children, but said the woman had remained in possession of the land for more than 30 years. The judgment was pronounced on August 24, 2026.Why did the dispute arise?According to the court order, Tarubala Saha had bought 4 bigha, 2 katha and 10 lecha of land through a registered sale deed on February 18, 1975. The land originally belonged to Yad Ali, who had several children, some of whom were minors when he died.His son Nagar Ali sold the land to Saha, both for himself and on behalf of his four minor brothers and sisters.Saha claimed that she remained in possession of the land after buying it and had it cultivated through labourers. Her name was also entered in the land records. She alleged that the defendants removed her from the land on February 15, 2008 and built houses there.The defendants disputed the sale, saying Nagar Ali had no right to sell the shares belonging to his minor brothers and sisters. They also said he had not been appointed as their guardian by a court. They sought cancellation of the sale deed and claimed ownership of the land.The trial court ruled in Saha’s favour and ordered that she be given possession of the land. It also rejected the defendants’ claim. The first appeal filed by the defendants was later dismissed.Why did the high court uphold Saha’s claim?Justice Kalyan Rai Surana agreed with the lower courts that Nagar Ali could not legally sell the shares of his minor brothers and sisters simply because he was their elder brother. The court held that the sale was not valid for their four-fifths share. However, the sale was valid for Nagar Ali’s own one-fifth share.“Therefore, it is seen that the finding of the learned trial court, as modified by the finding by the learned first appellate court that the sale deed was void in respect of 4/5th share is the correct appreciation of Mohammedan Law, which does not recognize Nagar Ali, son of Yad Ali, who is also the elder brother of other four minor siblings, to act as their guardian so as to validly sell-off the land covered by the registered sale deed no. 2913/75 dated 18.02.1975,” the court noted.The court also found that Saha had been in possession of the land for around 30-33 years. People who had cultivated the land for her supported her claim, and their evidence was not shaken during questioning by the defendants’ lawyers.“Thus, the learned trial court is found to have correctly decided the issue no. 10 in the negative, meaning thereby that the sale deed no. 2913/75 dated 18.02.1975 (Ext.1) is valid. The said decision of the learned Trial Court has been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, by explaining that the said sale deed was valid so far as it relates to one-fifth share of Nagar Ali,” it further added.The high court further noted that Saha had proved her possession through people who cultivated the land for her. Their evidence remained unchallenged during cross-examination.“This court also concurs with the concurrent finding by the learned trial court and the learned first appellate court on issue nos. 7 and 10, because the plaintiff has been able to prove that she was in possession of the suit land since purchasing it and cultivating through adhiar, i.e. PW-3 and PW-5. The evidence of the PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 remains impeached during cross-examination,” the court said.The high court noted that the defendants did not challenge the sale within the time allowed by law. They should have raised their claim within the prescribed period after becoming adults or after the land was handed over to Saha.The court said their long delay meant they could no longer seek cancellation of the sale deed or claim the land back.It also agreed with the lower courts that the defendants’ claim that they came to know about the sale only after receiving the court notice in 2008 was not believable.The High Court found no reason to interfere with the decisions of the two lower courts and dismissed the appeal with costs. It held that Saha’s successors were entitled to retain the benefit of her claim to the land and recover its possession.
